6 ms·

Honestly, I think Apple's in the right here. Every developer agrees to the App Store rules before releasing their applications. Apple created guidelines for the

Honestly, I think Apple's in the right here. Every developer agrees to the App Store rules before releasing their applications. Apple created guidelines for their developers and they're simply taking advantage of that in court. Not saying I agree with it, but it doesn't go without reason.

senko 6y ago
As the judge said, that is a contract breach, which is handled by different lawsuit. In this lawsuit Apple argued it's theft, which is nonsense, and so the judge told them to go stuff it.
- storkhill 6y ago
  Ah okay. I apologize, I didn't catch that the first time.
- intricatedetail 6y ago
  They should charge Apple for wasting courts time. Imagine someone had legitimate case but had to wait for their turn as Apple clogged the court. Utterly disgusting.
  - judge2020 6y ago
    This is why court fees exist, there’s always a losing side so almost any case could be interpreted as the losing side “wasting the court’s time”.
    - intricatedetail 6y ago
      Apple has virtually unlimited money, so fees are irrelevant.
felipellrocha 6y ago
Same. I don’t like Apple’s overreach in the industry, over all, but their apple store service is great, and they should be paid for it. Don’t wanna pay? Don’t go to the store.
- stale2002 6y ago
  That doesn't mean this is "theft" though. Even if Apple ultimately is found to not be a monopoly, this particular action would be a simple contract breach. Not theft.
- JohnJamesRambo 6y ago
  Don’t wanna use Standard Oil, don’t use oil. See how that works?
- pixl97 6y ago
  >Don’t wanna pay? Don’t go to the store. Is this supposed to be an ironic comment? Because if it is not, I'm concerned for your knowledge about the situation.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- cptskippy 6y ago
  The counter argument is that Apple has structured the deal so that you can't avoid the store. Additionally if you're in the store, Apple forbids you from advertising cheaper alternatives to in-app purchases. So basically if you want to sell on Apple, you must give Apple a 30% of all sales on the platform AND you're not allowed to tell users they can purchase your wares via alternatives.
- horsawlarway 6y ago
  I've said this before in previous discussions of this case - I don't think anyone is arguing that Apple shouldn't have the right to charge companies that take advantage of the products and services that they've built in their store I think that problem is that Apple is arbitrarily denying the ability for any other company to provide a competing product. How can you honestly evaluate the value proposition of Apple's "great" store, if they've killed all the competition? You can't. Which is the whole damn point, because Epic HAS a store that I'm sure they'd love to release on iOS but Apple prohibits it. Basically - Apple is the bully who's now crying foul when the competition is actually trying to enter the game. From a monetary standpoint, I understand why Apple is doing this. As a developer and distributor of software (my day job), I cannot express clearly enough how much I'd like to see Apple lose this case. As far as I'm concerned, they can fuck right off. I'm firmly in the "Handle it like MS and IE" camp - I want a court ruling that not only prohibits Apple from stopping competition in their store space, I want a MANDATORY popup on first use that asks the user which store they'd like to use.
mdorazio 6y ago
That's not really the core of the argument here. Epic is arguing that Apple's terms themselves (taking a cut of the revenue that's a direct result of Epic's team's efforts with zero options to do anything else) are not fair and should be unenforceable given its market position. Basically, breach of contract is only a valid legal basis when the contract itself is deemed legally acceptable. Ex. you can't force someone to sign a ridiculous contract at gunpoint and then sue them for breach later. Where you come down on this issue should really be based on whether you think a marketplace cut of revenue with extremely onerous conditions that prevent even minor bypasses should be legal or not when distribution on said marketplace constitutes 50% of the consumer market in the sector (mobile gaming in this case). Whether or not someone previously agreed to the terms is not the issue.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > Where you come down on this issue should really be based on whether you think a marketplace cut of revenue with extremely onerous conditions that prevent even minor bypasses should be legal or not when distribution on said marketplace constitutes 50% of the consumer market in the sector This is a court case. Not a legislative session. Where you come down on it should be based on the law. I believe the law should be changed. But based on existing law, it is difficult to find for Epic. Epic's strategy is, in effect, a high-risk lobbying endeavor.
  - warent 6y ago
    Courts can and do make new laws and undo laws all the time. Whether or not they should is another matter entirely, but it is well within the court's power to reinterpret laws quite liberally.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    > Where you come down on it should be based on the law. The comment that you responded to included facts that would support the idea that Apple's behavior is against the current law. When they said that " said marketplace constitutes 50% of the consumer market" This is a reason as for why Apple is breaking the law. It is an argument that Apple has significant market power, and is engaging in anti-competitive actions, which is illegal.

senko 6y ago

As the judge said, that is a contract breach, which is handled by different lawsuit. In this lawsuit Apple argued it's theft, which is nonsense, and so the judge told them to go stuff it.

storkhill 6y ago
Ah okay. I apologize, I didn't catch that the first time.
intricatedetail 6y ago
They should charge Apple for wasting courts time. Imagine someone had legitimate case but had to wait for their turn as Apple clogged the court. Utterly disgusting.
- judge2020 6y ago
  This is why court fees exist, there’s always a losing side so almost any case could be interpreted as the losing side “wasting the court’s time”.
  - intricatedetail 6y ago
    Apple has virtually unlimited money, so fees are irrelevant.

felipellrocha 6y ago

Same. I don’t like Apple’s overreach in the industry, over all, but their apple store service is great, and they should be paid for it. Don’t wanna pay? Don’t go to the store.

stale2002 6y ago
That doesn't mean this is "theft" though. Even if Apple ultimately is found to not be a monopoly, this particular action would be a simple contract breach. Not theft.
JohnJamesRambo 6y ago
Don’t wanna use Standard Oil, don’t use oil. See how that works?
pixl97 6y ago
>Don’t wanna pay? Don’t go to the store. Is this supposed to be an ironic comment? Because if it is not, I'm concerned for your knowledge about the situation.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
cptskippy 6y ago
The counter argument is that Apple has structured the deal so that you can't avoid the store. Additionally if you're in the store, Apple forbids you from advertising cheaper alternatives to in-app purchases. So basically if you want to sell on Apple, you must give Apple a 30% of all sales on the platform AND you're not allowed to tell users they can purchase your wares via alternatives.
horsawlarway 6y ago
I've said this before in previous discussions of this case - I don't think anyone is arguing that Apple shouldn't have the right to charge companies that take advantage of the products and services that they've built in their store I think that problem is that Apple is arbitrarily denying the ability for any other company to provide a competing product. How can you honestly evaluate the value proposition of Apple's "great" store, if they've killed all the competition? You can't. Which is the whole damn point, because Epic HAS a store that I'm sure they'd love to release on iOS but Apple prohibits it. Basically - Apple is the bully who's now crying foul when the competition is actually trying to enter the game. From a monetary standpoint, I understand why Apple is doing this. As a developer and distributor of software (my day job), I cannot express clearly enough how much I'd like to see Apple lose this case. As far as I'm concerned, they can fuck right off. I'm firmly in the "Handle it like MS and IE" camp - I want a court ruling that not only prohibits Apple from stopping competition in their store space, I want a MANDATORY popup on first use that asks the user which store they'd like to use.

mdorazio 6y ago

That's not really the core of the argument here. Epic is arguing that Apple's terms themselves (taking a cut of the revenue that's a direct result of Epic's team's efforts with zero options to do anything else) are not fair and should be unenforceable given its market position. Basically, breach of contract is only a valid legal basis when the contract itself is deemed legally acceptable. Ex. you can't force someone to sign a ridiculous contract at gunpoint and then sue them for breach later. Where you come down on this issue should really be based on whether you think a marketplace cut of revenue with extremely onerous conditions that prevent even minor bypasses should be legal or not when distribution on said marketplace constitutes 50% of the consumer market in the sector (mobile gaming in this case). Whether or not someone previously agreed to the terms is not the issue.

JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> Where you come down on this issue should really be based on whether you think a marketplace cut of revenue with extremely onerous conditions that prevent even minor bypasses should be legal or not when distribution on said marketplace constitutes 50% of the consumer market in the sector This is a court case. Not a legislative session. Where you come down on it should be based on the law. I believe the law should be changed. But based on existing law, it is difficult to find for Epic. Epic's strategy is, in effect, a high-risk lobbying endeavor.
- warent 6y ago
  Courts can and do make new laws and undo laws all the time. Whether or not they should is another matter entirely, but it is well within the court's power to reinterpret laws quite liberally.
- stale2002 6y ago
  > Where you come down on it should be based on the law. The comment that you responded to included facts that would support the idea that Apple's behavior is against the current law. When they said that " said marketplace constitutes 50% of the consumer market" This is a reason as for why Apple is breaking the law. It is an argument that Apple has significant market power, and is engaging in anti-competitive actions, which is illegal.